S2000 myths debunked
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 4,789
Likes: 0
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Originally Posted by mtgear1,Dec 6 2009, 11:54 PM
really? i have a hard time believing a 3,233lbs base model 370z with no limited slip differential and 50 series 18 inch tires (front , 45 series back) will be able to keep up with an s2000 around a tight circuit, much less a s2000 CR
those things are nothing without the sport package, nothing!!, hahahahaha
those things are nothing without the sport package, nothing!!, hahahahaha
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Woodson,Dec 7 2009, 08:27 AM
Stop now. You're embarrassing yourself.
professional race car drivers racing an ap1 s2000 against an e46 m3 (333hp AND lsd) and track model 350z. AP1 s2000 comes in 3rd but records the 2nd fastest lap time (.09 second slower than the M3)
untill someone comes up with some solid evidece of a BASE MODEL 370Z beating a s2000cr around a tsukuba like circuit, i am not buying any of you "expert" i.e amateur racing theories.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1YN9yBS0xk [/media]
heheh, hahaha, hahahahahahaha
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
[QUOTE=mtgear1,Dec 7 2009, 09:49 AM]really? below is my emperical evidence, hehehe
professional race car drivers racing an ap1 s2000 against an e46 m3 (333hp AND lsd) and track model 350z. AP1 s2000 comes in 3rd but records the 2nd fastest lap time (.09 second slower than the M3)
untill someone comes up with some solid evidece of a BASE MODEL 370Z beating a s2000cr around a tsukuba like circuit, i am not buying any of you "expert" i.e amateur racing theories.
professional race car drivers racing an ap1 s2000 against an e46 m3 (333hp AND lsd) and track model 350z. AP1 s2000 comes in 3rd but records the 2nd fastest lap time (.09 second slower than the M3)
untill someone comes up with some solid evidece of a BASE MODEL 370Z beating a s2000cr around a tsukuba like circuit, i am not buying any of you "expert" i.e amateur racing theories.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by S2Krazee,Dec 7 2009, 07:56 AM
You don't know me or my experience. Yes, it had everything to do with my experience, and from the sound of it, you have no clue what you are talking about. Go back go doing what you do best: red light racing 4,000+ lb SUVs.
red light racing 4,000+ lb SUVs., hehehe
thats a good one, i have no come back for that
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,572
Likes: 18
From: Second City
This thread has turned to fail. I love that a guy with 2 track days who has already spouted off false information is trying to educate people who are clearly more experienced than him by using magazine racing.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,216
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by patinum,Dec 7 2009, 10:22 AM
This thread has turned to fail. I love that a guy with 2 track days who has already spouted off false information is trying to educate people who are clearly more experienced than him by using magazine racing.
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,513
Likes: 3
From: Laguna Beach
Originally Posted by ZDan,Dec 7 2009, 08:19 AM
Dude, you need to open YOUR physics book, you're way off.
Engine power DOES determine torque at the drive wheels. If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the ground. Given a tire diameter, you know torque at the drive wheels.
Thrust at the ground = power/road speed (minus losses)
WRONG. Power is NOT "considered work". Power is the RATE of doing work. And it is NOT "torque (or a moment) over time". Work = force applied multiplied by distance moved in the same direction. Units of work are force*distance, but this is NOT TORQUE. Power is the instantaneous rate of doing work in units of: force*distance/time. 1 horsepower = 550 ft-lb/sec.
If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the tire contact patch.
Thrust at wheels = power/speed
thrust in lb. = (horsepower*550)/(speed in ft/s) [multiply by ~.85-.90 to account for mechanical losses in the drivetrain and tire slip]
I've driven both back-to-back, and I've played cat and mouse with two very competent (one club champion) drivers. The Z does NOT pull out of slow corners with any particularly greater urge than an S2000. POWER TO WEIGHT determines acceleration. Power-to-weight is very similar between the S2000 and 287hp Z. Hence acceleration is very similar. Torque is important only inasmuch as it allows you to make power. The S2000 makes up for its torque deficit with revs, which allow much better gearing, while the 287hp Z is limited to 6500rpm, which handicaps it. The REAL story is, once again, POWER TO WEIGHT.
Wrong yet again. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about from a physics perspective and from a personal experience perspective. I've done about 80 or so track days over the years and won 5 time trial championships. Not that that necessarily makes me an expert... But in these cases (knowledge of the physical world and actual track experience), I know what I'm talking about.
No, they were both competent drivers, at my level.
Well, I have passed a T1 Corvette at NHMS in a car with about half the torque (and power)!
Thanks for guessing on my level of experience and knowledge of physics.
Try again...
Engine power DOES determine torque at the drive wheels. If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the ground. Given a tire diameter, you know torque at the drive wheels.
Thrust at the ground = power/road speed (minus losses)
WRONG. Power is NOT "considered work". Power is the RATE of doing work. And it is NOT "torque (or a moment) over time". Work = force applied multiplied by distance moved in the same direction. Units of work are force*distance, but this is NOT TORQUE. Power is the instantaneous rate of doing work in units of: force*distance/time. 1 horsepower = 550 ft-lb/sec.
If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the tire contact patch.
Thrust at wheels = power/speed
thrust in lb. = (horsepower*550)/(speed in ft/s) [multiply by ~.85-.90 to account for mechanical losses in the drivetrain and tire slip]
I've driven both back-to-back, and I've played cat and mouse with two very competent (one club champion) drivers. The Z does NOT pull out of slow corners with any particularly greater urge than an S2000. POWER TO WEIGHT determines acceleration. Power-to-weight is very similar between the S2000 and 287hp Z. Hence acceleration is very similar. Torque is important only inasmuch as it allows you to make power. The S2000 makes up for its torque deficit with revs, which allow much better gearing, while the 287hp Z is limited to 6500rpm, which handicaps it. The REAL story is, once again, POWER TO WEIGHT.
Wrong yet again. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about from a physics perspective and from a personal experience perspective. I've done about 80 or so track days over the years and won 5 time trial championships. Not that that necessarily makes me an expert... But in these cases (knowledge of the physical world and actual track experience), I know what I'm talking about.
No, they were both competent drivers, at my level.
Well, I have passed a T1 Corvette at NHMS in a car with about half the torque (and power)!
Thanks for guessing on my level of experience and knowledge of physics.
Try again...
Well played sir
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by mtgear1,Dec 6 2009, 01:27 PM
ABSOLUTELY, i was saying a 370z is slower than an s2000, hehe
The S2000 is a absolute blast to drive around a track, or around town for that matter, but it is not fast. And as much as I like to take it to the track, it is way slower than a base 370Z, which you can't compare to a 350Z.
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by patinum,Dec 7 2009, 10:22 AM
This thread has turned to fail. I love that a guy with 2 track days who has already spouted off false information is trying to educate people who are clearly more experienced than him by using magazine racing.
i agree this thread has turned to fail? how did we get here?
"And are you saying a 370 is slower than an s2000? " - ShiftGearAP1 (not sure how he got that from my OP)
"ABSOLUTELY, i was saying a 370z is slower than an s2000, hehe" - me
clearly i was being sarcastic/ joking, but you all got gong ho and took it seriously so i played along.
i have much respect you those who track regularly, i am sure i will be coming to u all for advice as time goes. (i still dont see the correlation between the # of track time i have had and that video)
let me guess motortrend laguna seca lap time shows MazdaSpeed 3 faster than an 06 s2000, the lap was done in 09 and they used an 06 s2000? what gives?
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q4/...ap_2008-feature
that link shows s2000 beating MS3 by a full second per lap in a looooong, huge track that favors power
everybody please lower your flame throwers and make up with each other, we all love s2000's, besides my flame retardant suit is totally burnt
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,315
Likes: 0
From: Mandeville, La
Originally Posted by ZDan,Dec 7 2009, 08:19 AM
Dude, you need to open YOUR physics book, you're way off.
Engine power DOES determine torque at the drive wheels. If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the ground. Given a tire diameter, you know torque at the drive wheels.
Thrust at the ground = power/road speed (minus losses)
WRONG. Power is NOT "considered work". Power is the RATE of doing work. And it is NOT "torque (or a moment) over time". Work = force applied multiplied by distance moved in the same direction. Units of work are force*distance, but this is NOT TORQUE. Power is the instantaneous rate of doing work in units of: force*distance/time. 1 horsepower = 550 ft-lb/sec.
If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the tire contact patch.
Thrust at wheels = power/speed
thrust in lb. = (horsepower*550)/(speed in ft/s) [multiply by ~.85-.90 to account for mechanical losses in the drivetrain and tire slip]
I've driven both back-to-back, and I've played cat and mouse with two very competent (one club champion) drivers. The Z does NOT pull out of slow corners with any particularly greater urge than an S2000. POWER TO WEIGHT determines acceleration. Power-to-weight is very similar between the S2000 and 287hp Z. Hence acceleration is very similar. Torque is important only inasmuch as it allows you to make power. The S2000 makes up for its torque deficit with revs, which allow much better gearing, while the 287hp Z is limited to 6500rpm, which handicaps it. The REAL story is, once again, POWER TO WEIGHT.
Wrong yet again. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about from a physics perspective and from a personal experience perspective. I've done about 80 or so track days over the years and won 5 time trial championships. Not that that necessarily makes me an expert... But in these cases (knowledge of the physical world and actual track experience), I know what I'm talking about.
No, they were both competent drivers, at my level.
Well, I have passed a T1 Corvette at NHMS in a car with about half the torque (and power)!
Thanks for guessing on my level of experience and knowledge of physics.
Try again...
Engine power DOES determine torque at the drive wheels. If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the ground. Given a tire diameter, you know torque at the drive wheels.
Thrust at the ground = power/road speed (minus losses)
WRONG. Power is NOT "considered work". Power is the RATE of doing work. And it is NOT "torque (or a moment) over time". Work = force applied multiplied by distance moved in the same direction. Units of work are force*distance, but this is NOT TORQUE. Power is the instantaneous rate of doing work in units of: force*distance/time. 1 horsepower = 550 ft-lb/sec.
If you know engine power and road speed, you know the thrust at the tire contact patch.
Thrust at wheels = power/speed
thrust in lb. = (horsepower*550)/(speed in ft/s) [multiply by ~.85-.90 to account for mechanical losses in the drivetrain and tire slip]
I've driven both back-to-back, and I've played cat and mouse with two very competent (one club champion) drivers. The Z does NOT pull out of slow corners with any particularly greater urge than an S2000. POWER TO WEIGHT determines acceleration. Power-to-weight is very similar between the S2000 and 287hp Z. Hence acceleration is very similar. Torque is important only inasmuch as it allows you to make power. The S2000 makes up for its torque deficit with revs, which allow much better gearing, while the 287hp Z is limited to 6500rpm, which handicaps it. The REAL story is, once again, POWER TO WEIGHT.
Wrong yet again. I know EXACTLY what I'm talking about from a physics perspective and from a personal experience perspective. I've done about 80 or so track days over the years and won 5 time trial championships. Not that that necessarily makes me an expert... But in these cases (knowledge of the physical world and actual track experience), I know what I'm talking about.
No, they were both competent drivers, at my level.
Well, I have passed a T1 Corvette at NHMS in a car with about half the torque (and power)!
Thanks for guessing on my level of experience and knowledge of physics.
Try again...
Seriously. Brush up on physics that you actually have the mental capacity for. And quit claiming to be something that you're not. Liars don't make friends.... especially on the internet. You just sound like an idiot that no one believes.
IBTL!